Are You Answering The Right Question Mr (AG) Mohamed Apandi Ali?

  Why (AG) Mohamed Apandi Ali Stonewalling to exonerate Najib from Altantuya Shaariibuu murder case 

Attorney-general (AG) Mohamed Apandi Ali, all the claims you made to exonerate Najib Abdul Razak from this murder case are, unfortunately, false.

Irrefutable facts fly in the face of your patently dishonest claims that Najib was never implicated in the trial, all relevant witnesses were called to testify, and every piece of evidence subjected to intense scrutiny.

This was most vividly demonstrated in the court drama on Day 10 of the trial (June 29, 2007) when the victim Altantuya Shaariibuu’s cousin Burmaa Oyunchimeg stunned the court with the shocking revelation that her cousin showed her a photo of Abdul Razak Baginda, Altantuya and Najib taking a meal together.

In a scene that could only occur in a Malaysian court, both the prosecutor and the defence lawyer jumped to shut Burmaa up from testifying further along this line - with the concurrence of the judge.

Only days earlier (Day 7, June 6), a similar incidence occurred, when a Mongolian witness told the court that immigration entry record of Altantuya and her two Mongolian companions were mysteriously erased. At the insistence of both the prosecution and the defence, this piece of evidence was expunged.

Where in the democratic world can you see the prosecutor, defence lawyer and the judge working in unison against the interests of the victim’s family by blocking crucial evidence that could have incriminated the culprit?

That the entire criminal judiciary system had been heavily manipulated in this trial was evident even before the trial started, when all the three parties - prosecutors, defence lawyers and the judge - were replaced without explanation before hearing commenced.also read this Questions for AG’s Chambers a moment for Judiciary in Malaysia Crazy, stupid, comedy

e police have been urged to reopen investigations into the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder case in the wake of what the man charged with abetting in the crime had said in his affidavit. Lawyer Karpal Singh (ABOVE), who is holding a watching brief for Altantuya's family, said the startling revelations in the affidavit by political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, read at the Shah Alam High Court on Friday in support of his bail application, had brought into focus the necessity to reopen investigations. Abdul Razak stated in his affidavit that he had a seven-month affair with Altantuya before their relationship turned sour. He had been with her inHong Kong, Shanghai, Singapore, France and Kuala Lumpur between 2004 and 2005, and they had been lovers. "She claimed to be a student and did side business (cari makan sampingan),"

Abdul Razak said, adding that he gave her money on several occasions, including US$10,000 (RM35,000) on three occasions. This money, he said, was to meet the medical expenses of Altantuya's mother, who was suffering from cancer.Abdul Razak said sometime towards the end of 2005, he stopped giving her money and lodged a police report on Oct 23 last year as "I could not tolerate her nuisance". Karpal, who is also the Bukit Gelugor MP, called on the police to record the statement from the Commissioner for Oaths who affirmed Abdul Razak's affidavit.

"The commissioner would certainly be an important prosecution witness at the trial," he said. "The affidavit is a sworn statement and amounts to evidence as if given from the witness box under oath. "The evidence in the affidavit is stronger than a cautioned statement, which is not given under oath." Karpal said the affidavit itself seemed like a confession and this led to judge Datuk K.N. Segara to comment that "there is also no dispute that the accused, on face value, abetted in the crime". 

The judge also said Abdul Razak and Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri, one of the men charged with her murder, were in constant communication before Altantuya was killed. Karpal called on the police to investigate Abdul Razak's assertion that Azilah admitted he had killed six to seven people. "This incriminating statement is compounded by the fact that Azilah is a chief inspector attached to the Special Action Squad." Karpal said every effort should be made to bring to justice those responsible for Altantuya's murder. The case created a media frenzy after it was reported that Altantuya was shot before her body was blown up using explosives. Her bone fragments were found in a jungle clearing near Shah Alam. Abdul Razak is charged with abetting Azilah, 30, and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, 35, in Altantuya's murder. Azilah and Sirul were alleged to have committed the offence in Bukit Raja, Petaling, between 10pm on Oct 19 and 1am on Oct 20.

some effort to highlight the importance of a public inquiry into her murder. It can reveal to us how the system of government operates, as well as how the police and our justice system will manage such cases — where there is some connection to top leaders—in future. Understanding what happened to Altantuya holds the key to understanding many things that are wrong with our country.the Registrar of the Court may be unwilling to explain why the first judge that was appointed to hear the Altantuya case was changed. But a retired Registrar somewhere may be willing to explain how judges are allotted to hear cases, under what circumstances they can be changed and by whom.

We can also call retired police officers who might be willing to volunteer other relevant information, such as when commandos like Azilah and Sirul are used. They can explain to us the chain of command and who the bosses are. We can also understand better how explosives like C4 are kept and who can authorise their use.an explanation the reason for the change in the judge as it was previously heard before Justice Datuk K.N.Segara.

Judge Segara asked the right question: “Why him? Is he the person to ask for help? How is he going to admonish her? The applicant should have gone to the Inspector-General of Police or the OCPD for protection. Anyway, he has got his own security.What’s his motive other than to get rid of her? So that he could sleep soundly after she disappears?Judge Segara .said that the impression he got was that “Razak had motive to get rid of” Altantuya. 

“The question of him fearing for the safety of himself and his family was not the real issue. These are just the red herrings. 

At one point, Razak’s counsel Wong Kian Kheong read out the events on the morning of Oct 18 last year where Chief Insp Azilah called Razak and told him that he had killed six or more people before and therefore could help stop the harassment by the woman. 

This caused Justice Segara to interject: “You have got here a person who claims that he had killed before and he can settle your problem.  

A High Court judge found the events in Abdul Razak Baginda’s tell-all affidavit suggested his involvement in the murder of his Mongolian lover Altantuya Shaariibuu. 

“And what is your problem? You were threatened by a woman and you want her out of sight. Period. Yet, you go on dealing with that police officer.” 

Wong (referring to affidavit and reading): I (Razak) told Chief Insp Azilah not to do anything untoward against Altantuya. If any such thing were to happen to her, her family will look for me. I believe that as a police officer, he would not commit a crime. I only asked him to get police to patrol around my house. I gave him my address and Hotel Malaya where the deceased was staying. 

Judge: Whatever for did he give the address of the hotel to this man who said he had killed before? The relationship had ended in 2005 and suddenly, she is back in the picture in 2006. You don’t call the authority but a crime was committed after that. 

Wong: The accused took Chief Insp Azilah as a police officer who can help. 

Judge: Is your client an ordinary layman for you to give me such an answer? 

Wong: My client did admonish Chief Insp Azilah.  

Judge: Why call Azilah and not the police directly? 

Wong: To protect the family. 

Judge: This is your version but there are a lot of gaps. This is one man who claimed he had killed yet you went to him. 

Wong: But the accused had admonished him. 

Judge: Who is he to admonish a police officer? He had no right. Is he the boss of this person? Is he the IGP? These are questions that you cannot run away from answering.  

Wong: He wanted Azilah to help him in a legal manner. 

Judge: Come on, you expect the court to believe this? He has such a big establishment. He can just walk into the Brickfields police station and see someone. Anyway, I have not formed any conclusion about your client’s guilt. I am only questioning based on what is stated in the affidavit. 

“The whole thing is here. He called the person to get rid of her. No need to go any further in relation to abetment. The police officer is no longer helping him as a police. He is there in his personal capacity. This particular episode has flashed the entire abetment act.” 

Justice Segara said that it was in this light that the court would look at the case.  

“We will only know at the time of the trial when we hear all the other people’s versions. Then, we will know whether he had asked to kill or not. At the moment, he abetted in contacting Azilah, knowing very well that he had killed six people,” he said. 

When counsel read out the next day’s events but skipped the part that Razak had gone to the Deputy Prime Minister’s office for official reason, Justice Segara said:  

“Why did you skip that? There is nothing to worry. He just went there. It is in the affidavit. He should have known better and go straight to the police or IGP and not embarrass the DPM. 

“Facts must surface. You cannot hide. The truth will always prevail.” 

Wong then read out the omitted part. Here Razak claimed that he had met DSP Musa in the DPM’s office and asked what happened to Altantuya but DSP Musa said Chief Insp Azilah did not update him. 

A few days later, Razak asked DSP Musa again and the latter gave the same answer as before. 

This part of the affidavit, the judge said, was an attempt to drag people in and create embarrassment.  

“The events clearly showed that there was enough grounds to prove that he abetted in the murder allegedly committed by two police personnel,” said Justice K.N. Segara before throwing out Razak’s bail application. 

The prosecution of the case has been tardy from the start, with the failure to establish the motive for Altantuya’s murder the most questionable of all. Through the case, the labored attempts by both prosecution and defence to obstruct the probe into any involvement of then defence minister were also most bewildering.

During the course of the trial, Razak's demeanour clearly showed that if he was found guilty, he would bring certain people down together. Those who were following the trial closely would know about the threats made.